Solution to the spearman - tank problem?

[SpencerH]

Its not even the streaky RNG that is the problem its the unsophisticated A/D/M numbers. An archer has double the offensive capability of a guy with a club but a MBT has only 14 times the capability.

[ratster]

You need to go to the Supply thread where I was told emphatically that it (CIVIII) is a wargame (which it's NOT!).

If it is a wargame, its the only one I know of that can be played start to finish without ever going to war, hmmm.

[vmxa1]

Originally posted by SpencerH
Its not even the streaky RNG that is the problem its the unsophisticated A/D/M numbers. An archer has double the offensive capability of a guy with a club but a MBT has only 14 times the capability.

This is where I felt that fire power should have been left in the game. So each age the units could have a modifier of FP.
This would make it harder for older units to win and that is not what they wanted.

So you have the low ratio of attack values, thus allowing some opportunity for obsolete units to win an occasional battle.

I still yell when my 6 attack loses to that 2 defender, but it is not that common.

[spy14]

Originally posted by vmxa1
If one sees that too often a clearly superior unit loses, that can be seen at times. The problem I see is when people complain about units losing that are only marginally better that the one they attacked.

So we do not need a fix for spear vs tank.

Its easy enough to see a rifleman victory over tank (although not MA), but Spear over tank still baffles me. Roadside bombs and such will take a few tanks out yes, but the entire spear unit will be fragged from half a mile away by the remainder.

I think I gave this thread the wrong title, I was looking at a way for the series to progress and a new combat system sounds to me like a good idea for that. At the same time I figured that playing battles out would finally resolve this sort of argument, assuming units are given realistic capabilities in comparison to one another. Games such as Total War give the same campaign elements as Civ, but with said option to fight the battles if you should wish, and it could be argued that the Civ series would be falling behind the competition unless major changes are made.

[Kuciwalker]

Look at the Spearmen as "militias" that aren't necessarily equipped with spears and fighting in close formation, if you need to.

Personally, I've NEVER lost a Tank to a Spearman.

[SpencerH]

I've never lost a tank to a spearman either, but losing two elite cav to a regular musketman in the open without it losing a hitpoint is too much for me.

If there is no need to upgrade your weaponry then there isnt as much point to the tech race is there?

When civ3 first came out, one player (I dont remember who) claimed to have won by only building warriors and galleys after starting with a 1 city island.

[Zero]

Spearman Problem does occur. But it isnt significant. Saying spearmen has 0% chance winning agst tank is ludicrous. And it seems as spearmen does win out roughly the correct percentage that they should be winning.

Often when people complain, they dont realize alot of things. Is the tank attacking across the river? Is it a regular VS a vet/elite? Is the spear stationed in mountain/hill/fortress/metro city? Remember that if spearmen can get roughly +300% defense bonus (which is possible), then its as good as a riflemen stationed in the middle of nowhere.

Sometimes, you just luck out, but sometimes you dont. A few streak of impossible odds might seem annoying, but when you look at the whole picture, it really isnt all that odd.

And I completely disagree with Tass. You dont just build lots of unit in this game. Maybe thats why he is losing superior quality and quantity units to much inferior army. Otherwise, there wont be much to talk about in Civ3 Strategy forum.

[Mr. President]

If for some unknown reason historical accuracy is important to you (while playing on Pangaea), you should recall that tanks were sometimes destroyed in World War II by partisans armed with a glass bottle full of gasoline.

[dworkin]

What in Ifni's name is the Spearman problem?

If the spearman unit defeats your tank, crush the blighter with your other tanks! Or does your industrial era unit mysteriously not come with an industrial era infrastructure?
And in the industrial era one has access to support units like the bomber and artillary. Use them.
As for a simulated combat arena, will your sim put in such diverse factors as these:

Whether the commander is an incompetant or a genius.

The morale of the troops. Are they elite forces or penal conscripts. Are they fighting for home and hearth or are they oppotunistic adventurers.

Has either side has caught a nasty disease.

An 'act of god' wiping out 90% of one side in an earthquake, volcanic eruption, flood etc.

The opinion on the home front. After 10 well reported casualties are the folks back home screaming 'bring our boys back'.

Does a unit commander of one side defect to the other?

Are your weapons/munitions top grade or sabotaged duds? Or have they merely been badly made by slave labor in concentration camps?

Does one side even have a general? Was the general killed eating beans confidantly saying "they coudn't hit an elephant at this dist...".

Has one side recieved superior weapons/training from a sympathetic third party?

Does your supply center suddenly get destroyed by supposedly loyal citizens revolting?

All these and more have been features of human warfare since we came up with the idea. I don't think any wargame on a PC could cover all these (and the ones I've forgotten) currently.

[David Murray]

>>Does a unit commander of one side defect to the other?<<

As I'm sure any rational man would do when his Armoured Division is faced by a great culture using spearmen to defend its cities.

[ErikM]

Originally posted by vmxa1
We maybe could stand a tweak to the streaky RNG, but only if it is not drastic. This may not be easy to accomplish.

I don't think that the RNG is streaky. It is just it has too much variance.

Combat system probably works as follows. Chahces for winning a single round of combat are A/(A+D)*100%, where A is the attacker's A value and D is the defender's D value. For a tank versus fortified spear in a city that would be 16/(16+4)=80% (I could be wrong about the way defensive boni are applied). So the game draws a random number in a range 1...100. Values 1-80 are a win for a tank, values 81-100 are a win for a spear.

The problem with this model is that extreme outcomes are just as likely as average ones (getting a RN of 1 is just as likely as drawing 100 and just as likely as drawing 50). Thus, there is too much variance around the mean.

It's like a statement "the average winter temperature in a country X is zero degrees Celsius" could potentially mean different things:
(i) on any given winter day the temperature is just as likely to be -30 as it is to be +30 as it is to be at zero.
(ii) on any given winter day the temperature is likely to be around zero, quite likely in the range -5...+5, with extreme temperature values possible, but very unlikely.

Our experience tells us that (ii) is more likely but Civ III really uses (i). It is just a property of uniform distribution that extreme outcomes are just as likely as "average" ones (like in normal distribution).

The easiest way to reduce the variance in combat is to increase the number of rounds (ie hitpoints for all units) so that the law of averages would come into play. With just three hitpoints losing against the spear is quite possible. With 30 hitpoints for both attacker/defender losing againdt the spear would be very unlikely.

Technically 30 hitpoints is probably too much. 6-10 hitpoints for combat units instead of 3-5 will go a long way towards reducing the variance in combat.

[Illyrien]

"Losing one tank isnt any sort of a problem to most peoples plans, but when you see it lost to an inferior unit you want to know wtf went wrong."

Have you ever seem Blackhawk Down?


I cant imagine in any way, an ancient style spearman unit fighting against tanks.... I look at it in this way. A spearman unit, in modern time is a really badly equiped, badly trained unit... but this unit may still somehow have gotten its hands on modern anti-tank weapons.

Just look at the world today... how many nations around the globe have the technology to produce modern weapons? Then have a look at how many nations use modern weapons! Just because you dont have the tech doesnt mean you havent gotten the weapons. And that is why, to me, a spearman killing a tank makes sence (as long as it dont happen everytime)

[WackenOpenAir]

civ not a war game?

then why are far most of the things you can build military units?

then why can you win the game by defeating your enemies?

in civ2, defeating your enemies was the normal way to win the game, in civ3 they added more ways. Those are additions. Civ still is a war game.

its called a strategy game. Strategy as in strategy of war.

Most of all however, civilisation is a game that represents human history. Unfortunately, war is a HUGE part of human history (and present and future)

Dunno what people are even trying to say or achieve with the statement that siv is not a wargame, but it is the biggest bull**** i have yet found on these forums.

[WackenOpenAir]

Originally posted by Illyrien


Have you ever seem Blackhawk Down?


I cant imagine in any way, an ancient style spearman unit fighting against tanks.... I look at it in this way. A spearman unit, in modern time is a really badly equiped, badly trained unit... but this unit may still somehow have gotten its hands on modern anti-tank weapons.

Just look at the world today... how many nations around the globe have the technology to produce modern weapons? Then have a look at how many nations use modern weapons! Just because you dont have the tech doesnt mean you havent gotten the weapons. And that is why, to me, a spearman killing a tank makes sence (as long as it dont happen everytime)

you can simply compare it with iraq where a bunch of desert rats have taken several US helicopers out of the air already.

[David Murray]

I still remember from Civ2 what happened when you attacked ground units with air units. It was just like normal combat, mostly, where you could get the ridiculous situation of a rifleman destroying a fighter. Wow, long range WWII rifles eh.

Civ3 is a massive improvement in almost every way over Civ2, which tends to make up for any slight shortcomings in combat situations. That said by far the thing in Civ3 that makes me shout out loud and swear the most is bad combat results. Of course I'm always very pleased when the AI gets the short end of the stick - as I'm sure we all are